Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I am not questioning the value of scientific research. I am questioning the value of a system that limits access to publicly-funded research to a tiny few, incentivizes positive results + overstated conclusions, & appears to be producing less notable work at an increasing cost

So there's a both a tremendous amount and not enough being done to address publication bias & that's a whole separate thread, but I do want to point out that there's a difference between research and the publication thereof. That's what I was getting at https://twitter.com/mrgunn/status/1101580949555310592 …

Funny, because when you asserted your far superior understanding of “the value of academic publishing,” I was actually expecting a defense of that and not of literally all research.

The argument I'm making is essentially: research is important, publishing facilitates research, so publishing is important. There are other ways to facilitate it, too, but publishing is a big one.

I eagerly followed this conversation hoping for something more substantial than this. I’m pretty sure any person who seriously cares about dismantling the publishing-industrial complex, cares in part because they recognize that research is important & should be accessible to all

I did go into greater detail, but the thread fractured into several pieces. I agree research is important, but the discussion was about publications of research. Anyone can post their manuscript online, but that doesn't necessarily make it accessible.

The concept of common pool resources is a useful framework here. The knowledge itself is a common good that is neither rivalrous nor excludable, but access to facilities, publishing venues, and grants is very much rivalrous.

Is it? Publishers aren’t financially enabling research. They’re providing the service of controlling its distribution, maintaining institutional exclusivity over respected work, & kingmaking scholars who play the game. Who’s actually funding the work?